Is that what those are? My ignorance of bee keeping has just made me for a fool.
Eheh, my father is a bk, so I had a clue.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner 2049 |OT| Do Androids Dream of Electric Boogaloo? [Unmarked Spoilers]
- Thread starter Mr. Sam
- Start date
Eheh, my father is a bk, so I had a clue.
KarneeKarnay
Member
What would the put in the feeders btw? Could sugar from alcohol as suggested earlier work to feed bees?
Just watched the NYT video, posted by N7.Angel. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/denis-villeneuve-interview-blade-runner-2049.html
I have a few issues with the director here. He describes this as trying to be scene where you aren't sure what's real. It's meant to be a dream line state, but it's never hinted at before hand this was a possibility. That maybe we shouldn't trust what we are seeing. Secondly he talks about he significance of the bee, but the character we're meant to be experiencing all this with, gives no significance to this either. The music gives significance via the fog horn, but I felt nothing from this scene, because the character I was meant to connect with acted as if he was feeling nothing in the scene.
Sugar water.
Right now in Puerto Rico are doing the same, cause the flora is so badly damaged that bees can't find anything to eat.
Captain Skeleton
Member
Pollinate what? There isn't anything to pollinate anymore. So why not use them to make honey?
KarneeKarnay
Member
I think his point is, why not just have something make honey without having to feed it. That would make more sense than making artificial bees that use artificial feeders to make honey. Just skip the middle man and build something that makes honey.
Null point now that we know they are real bees.
Dark_3nergy
Member
AbsolutelyAnyone get Big O vibes from this? The event that wiped out all the records, certain beats about the way that K searches for the truth about his identity...I expected Gosling to reach for a tomato at some point.
Big O is one of my favorite animes for all of the interesting themes it brings a long with it.
Razorback
Member
Is that what those are? My ignorance of bee keeping has just made me for a fool.
Just watched the NYT video, posted by N7.Angel. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/denis-villeneuve-interview-blade-runner-2049.html
I have a few issues with the director here. He describes this as trying to be scene where you aren't sure what's real. It's meant to be a dream line state, but it's never hinted at before hand this was a possibility. That maybe we shouldn't trust what we are seeing. Secondly he talks about he significance of the bee, but the character we're meant to be experiencing all this with, gives no significance to this either. The music gives significance via the fog horn, but I felt nothing from this scene, because the character I was meant to connect with acted as if he was feeling nothing in the scene.
Why would the dream-like feeling need to be hinted at before hand? Blade Runner is to me first and foremost a mood piece movie. It's about evoking non-verbal moods, feelings, atmospheres. The world of 2049 is already surreal enough but at that point in the story, K's journey has gone so deep outside his comfort zone that the lines between reality and dream start to blur. It's very appropriate for a story about not taking for granted what the word real means. You're not literally meant to question if the scene is an actual dream, merely to subconsciously evoke the feeling.
I also can't relate with your necessity for the actor to telegraph what he's feeling. What exactly would that look like?
I just tried picturing that in my head and the result reminded me of some of the problems I have with anime. "Uh... what's this... huh... BEES??!"
ReplacementPelican
Member
Just to pick up on this. You don't need to be told this. The first Blade Runner does the same thing with the music and a lot of the direction because certain things are meant to seem ethereal and dream-like.
I don't know if its meant to literally be 'a dream' or 'dream like state' but its the feeling that the movie is supposed to evoke within you.
There's a theme in Blade Runner, more so in this movie of unreliable narration. The Replicants, by their nature and their memories are somewhat unreliable in their perception of the world.
Yeah, if the term was meant literally then that's fine, I'm agreeing with you. However I feel like its likely more of what the movie attempts to achieve in the way it frames some of the more wondrous aspects of itself.
On the note of replicant animals. They're most definitely a thing in both movies and not that subtle either. You may wonder why the dealer, on discussing the wood, was saying 'you're a rich man' and started bartering, he offered a horse or a goat. Now, this was framed not just alongside the 'you're rich' and offering an off-world pass.
This is because real, non-replicant, animals are a massive status symbol because most of them died off.
Sure, you don't get this from the movie but the Blade Runner movies don't honestly have the time to dig into the finer details of this world. I mean, throughout the films they reference 'taking back' off-world areas that we'll never seen, have no context of or anything.
Its a massive world and one we're only given a glimpse into through the mind of someone who hasn't been born for all that long, has a fake past and a very limited world-view.
I can understand the frustration in that.
That's what makes it magical.
The movie doesn't have any desire to explain every last detail. Rarely is it ever "oh here's a thing, now here is why that thing is the way it is." You're supposed to fill in your own blank. Like the bees or the dog; wondering how they came to be, how they survive, are they replicant animals etc.. is fine. It's supposed to provoke that reaction within you. But the film won't explain it in great detail. That's not the goal, and it's fully intentional. Even after two movies, it still isn't explicitly stated exactly how replicants work, even though both films deal with the consequences of how they work. Parts are written with enough ambiguity so that you may derive your own meaning from them.
It's fucking great.
KarneeKarnay
Member
My problem is that at no point is it hinted before hand that K's grip reality has been impacted. You can't just ask people to read into it when there is no hints what so ever that this was happening. Earlier in the film it was established that the fog atmosphere was everywhere now at the farm scene. Why should I assume that this time the fog is meant to symbalise that reality is twisting. Are we meant to assume K is seeing more than what we're seeing.
I'm not asking for him to fall apart like Nicholas Cage at the presence of bees, I'm asking to see some sort of confusion at the very least. I want an emotional response to this supposedly epic moment.
Here is my question to you. When you saw the film did you think that this was meant to indicate K reality was twisting, or are you basing this on what the director said in his NYT video?
Same question to you. I'm fine not being explained the details, but good Sci-fi is about rules.
It doesn't matter how amazing your world or setting is, but there has to be rules. I'm fine with not knowing all the rules and sometimes that makes a film better. In this case there are bees in the desert to make honey. We're not given any hint that this is a dream or that replicants even dream. We're not given any hint before hand that this could be an unreliable narrator. So what are we meant to take away from this scene?
What do the bees mean? Everything in a film should serve a purpose. What is the story trying to be told and how do bees factor in? Are we meant to be wondering if the bees are real or not? Are we meant to associate bees in a desert as the same miracle as a replicant giving birth? If so what logic means the Bees should be there? If they are real what on earth are the using to feed off and why are they being kept in the first place? Is Harrison Ford keeping them because they represent a subconcious need to be found? Does he keep them because they remind him in someway to his daughter or Rachel? Why doesn't he every mention it, why doesn't K?
You might think I'm being veracious with these questions, but I consider these to be very logical questions.
Tell me the story of that scene and what it adds? If it's just a study of the environment then what is the point in even having it? This movie is 2.5 hours long. Why add this scene if it brings nothing to the table?
KarneeKarnay
Member
???
If the logic behind the symbolism doesn't make sense then the symbolism won't make sense.
It's what elevates films like 2001 space odyssey. Everything in the film has a logical reason for being there, so all the symbolism you can draw off it makes sense.
That's what film theory is. You break down a film and try to figure out what's good or bad about it. This is the same logic behind essays on literature.
You can consume them without analysing them, but if all you do is consume without thinking about it, then what have you learned?
What's the logic behind the monolith? I get the story importance of the object but why a monolith? What's the with bedroom near the end of the film?
Sure, film theory is about deconstruction of meaning and semiotics but that doesn't mean that answers are immediately available. A film is deliberately constructed but that doesn't mean that there is a single key to unlock the meaning behind every single frame. Intent and interpretation are different things.
I do not appreciate the implication that I'm not thinking about what I've been watching. I also do not consider film or art to necessarily be a learning experience (in the traditional sense). Film first and foremost is a visceral experience and sensation from which one must form coherent thoughts. But that happens later.
Sure, film theory is about deconstruction of meaning and semiotics but that doesn't mean that answers are immediately available. A film is deliberately constructed but that doesn't mean that there is a single key to unlock the meaning behind every single frame. Intent and interpretation are different things.
I do not appreciate the implication that I'm not thinking about what I've been watching. I also do not consider film or art to necessarily be a learning experience (in the traditional sense). Film first and foremost is a visceral experience and sensation from which one must form coherent thoughts. But that happens later.
KarneeKarnay
Member
There is a distinction between world building and plot importance. That said the monoliths are probably a visual representation of humanities worship of technology.
I don't think there was a bedroom towards the end of the movie, unless you are talking about the one that K wakes up in and meets the resistance. In this case the griminess of the bedroom is to help indicate that this is a place for the downtrodden. It's a bedroom which is meant to represent a safe place to sleep, but the dirty room he wakes up in, indicates necessity rather than comfort. The plight of the replicants is such that comfort cannot be afforded.
The monolith was a cosmic burglar alarm. The bedroom is a familiar human setting designed by the advanced intelligence to study Bowman.
I was referring to the bedroom in 2001. As for the monolith as a representation for technology, glad to find somebody else who agrees and doesn't just think of it as an alien being. Not sure why you're trying to explain world building vs plot to me, I don't see how that's relevant to what I asked.
Razorback
Member
I didn't think it, I felt it. There's so much about this movie that isn't about words.
The whole scene looks surreal, but there's nothing ilogical about it. It's a deserted and ruined Las Vegas in the future. It's sin city, thus the statues.
A Nuke went off close by and now the whole area is surrounded by a thick orange dust atmosphere. Looks really strange, but it happens sometimes, someone posted pictures of Sydney during a dust storm and it looked the same.
Why are the bees there? It's unexpected, that makes for compelling storytelling. It's symbolic, even in a place like this there are still hints of hope that life might make it.
It helps the plot by helping K find Deckard. It makes you question things and have fun conversations with people after watching the movie.
Do the bees belong to Deckard? Sounds reasonable, he has to keep busy somehow in a ghost town. They provide honey, It's a fun hobby, like the dog they give him some company.
KarneeKarnay
Member
How do you make a better movie? You study films that are good and bad and you learn from their mistakes.
I think you're saying that I should ease up and just accept that something are in a movie, because movie. That's not what my problem is, neither is it that I expect a single answer to everything.
What I want is a reason? You can interpretate anything in a film to be whatever you want, but you need logic to back up that evidence.
If I said that I think Star Wars is about Incest, you'd ask for how I came to that conclusion. I'm treating the movie no differently. I think the symbolism of the scene is to show a miracle to K, but within the world they've built, this scene makes no sense.
By your logic I should just ignore it, but the film doesn't let me. It really spends time and effort establishing a scene that makes no sense with the wider film.I'm not asking to be spoon fed information here, but as it stands this scene just looks like a mistake, because it could have been fixed so easily. Any mention to the bees afterwards would have fixed it. It could have added so much more to the story.
What if Ford said that there were no bees, hinting at the unreliable narrator? Or if he said he likes the company? Then I could have drawn the connection between his daughter loss to the bees? Instead it's completely isolated and adds nothing to the films story.
edit;
Didn't realise we were talking about 2001. My bad. I suppose the same thing applies. The Monolith is a temple to technology, humanities desire for knowledge.
You are asking for things to be explicitly stated or called back to, which is not what BR is about. There is no immediate meaning to the scene. That's the point. You managed to come up with a dozen questions in your mind as a result of the scene. That is the entire purpose of the scene and what it adds to the movie. It's no different than the dancing holographic ballerina.
My immediate take was that, given the heat sensing vision K was using on the drone, the bees also might have provided a bit of camouflage to Deckard. But that's just a guess, and there is no definitive answer, and that is by design.
I must be terrible at conveying my thoughts because I do not think I suggested any such thing. I don't know if I can do any better but...I was trying to say that trying to decipher meaning or the intent behind something is not an easy process and an answer does not always present itself immediately.
Since you seem so hung up on bees and sand and their apparent randomness maybe consider that K is performing two actions set out in the Voigh-Kampff test from the original
"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand .." to Leon
"Suddenly you realize there's a wasp crawling on your arm." to Rachel
Is K living out a Voigh-Kampff test? Is Deckard? Are they possibly questioning they're own nature? I doubt this will serve as a satisfactory answer though. I'm sure there's other valid ways to look at that scene.
In this scenario Karnee is Leon asking irrelevant questions and getting Holden annoyed LOL
I better stop now cause I know what happens next...
Captain Skeleton
Member
I just don't get this bee thing.
Deckard is making honey.
K is searching Vegas for Deckard.
K finds the bee's.
K heard the piano playing near by.
K investigates piano.
Either Deckard is luring him into a trap or is drunkenly playing the piano.
Deckard is making honey.
K is searching Vegas for Deckard.
K finds the bee's.
K heard the piano playing near by.
K investigates piano.
Either Deckard is luring him into a trap or is drunkenly playing the piano.
I thought it was a way to show Deckard's location, without making him pop out of nowhere. Just like finding traces of a campfire in the jungle or whatever.
A honey trap?
I think he WAS just playing the piano
KarneeKarnay
Member
What is the point of the bees? I have given dozens of possible reasons for there to have been bees, but each one of them eventually doesn't make sense. This whole scene could have been cut completely from the movie and nothing of value would have been lost.
As to leaving the scene ambiguous. I don't buy it. If it was then it's a bad scene. What if the scene had been a row of baby doll heads placed on the ground? It would be exactly the same impact as bees. What do the bees add to the story? They could add to the theme of the movie and that is what I think they were going for, but the in movie world logic behind them doesn't make sense.
Try this: You're watching a horror movie. The main character is in a house with a murder. The character walk down a hall and see a painting of Cronos the god of time
It's not weird that there is a painting here. It makes sense there is a painting here. It doesn't really matter the contents of the painting, but you could read into it with different interpretations.
Now try this:
Same scenario, but the character walks down a hall and see the actual god Cronos.
Why is Cronos there? That's the only thought in your mind. It's not what does Cronos being here mean. It's never been hinted that Cronos or other fictional or deific entities can manifest. He's just here now.
That's what the Bees are. The bees are this version of Cronos. There just their with no explanation as to why. They don't add to the story the might add to theme, as would cronos, but it doesn't make sense in the world that's been built and that poisons whatever it could add to the theme.
The camouflage thing doesn't hold up, because that's how they find him. If anything it's rolling out the red carpet. Fords character shouldn't have been suprsied with them finding him in that case. Hell if the film hinted that Ford was slightly suicidal and wanted to be found after all these years, then you could read into the bees.
I would argue this film doesn't want you read into it. That the parallels to god, angled, demons, slavery, racism are all explained fairly early on. There isn't a lot of meaning to be derived when the film spells it out for you. I think the way it tries to show this is poorly implemented.
The bees are more the main example that comes to mind of style over substance. Now the test actually seems really cool. If the film had given more credence to it I could buy that, but it doesn't come up again later. If scenes later on matched that test questions that would have been a really cool Easter egg and added to the theme. There isn't a part when K gives a homeless man $10 or he's given a drink with a worm in it.
If this had been in the film that would have been awesome.
Nothing irrelevant about the bees. Just ask Nicholas Cage.
WASP? So many layers.
KarneeKarnay
Member
What reasoning do you have to say that? It was nearby where he found Deckard? It's a good assumption. Could he have found Deckard without that scene?
The scene serves no point. It could have been cut and we would have lost nothing from the film. A lot of this movie could have been cut and we'd have lost nothing. All these really long long shots, or close ups of K's face. All of that could have been cut and the film probably would have been better for it.
It would be a far weaker movie without those scenes. Modern movies always moving at a fast pace is not necessarily a good thing. Only keeping scenes that move plot can destroy mood in movies like this.
Those scenes you describe would destroy the mood and slow burn style of the movie which is central to making it the movie that it is.
And of course the bee scene was important to finding Deckard. It was the large group of bees that his heat signal caught wind of. It was clearly Deckards bee keep because no one else lives in Vegas and it was right outside the building he was holed up in.
but it needs to be faster with more shootbang and exposition
Captain Skeleton
Member
What reasoning? It's in the film. K heard the piano playing from the casino/hotel that Deckard is hiding in.
It's setting the mood and the scene. It's ratcheting up the tension for the reveal. Deckard, the hero from the first movie, is hiding in a wasteland of Vegas.
Why is Luke finding out on the only island on a water planet in the new star wars?
Aging mentor type characters are always hiding, and the journey to find them is a big deal. Why should we just have K strolling into the room where Deckard is?
True but Deckard was ready with his blaster, and was using the dog as a distraction.
Heckler456
Banned
Just because you don't get it, that doesn't mean it's not necessary.
The bees play into the theme they've got going on with hands, and testing what's "real". You've got the snow at the end, the rain at the start, and the bees. What it means EXACTLY, I'm not entirely sure. But there is a purpose to it being there.
And this is how it drives the plot forward. You don't really need any more justification than that.
The point it serves is that that's how K found Deckard, by noticing the bees' heat register.
K find D, because the bees shows up on the heat map. Otherwise he couldn't find him.
The beehive is in front of the Casino where D lives, in fact K hear the piano while he's studying the bees.
Sometimes a shot serve no immediate purpose, but combined with other shots can construct a broader purpose... like defining the nature of a character.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I'm bowing out of this one.
I still think the world building, setting and visuals to be some of the finest out of any film released this year.
It just bothers me when logical inconsistencies happen in a film, in my mind it happened here with that scene and it took me out of it.
To me everything in a film should be towards one thing. Telling the story. If the visuals overtake the story then the story will suffer and I think that's what happened here.
Peace!
Edit:
Here's how he finds deckard. The heat signature picks him up and not the bees.
I still think the world building, setting and visuals to be some of the finest out of any film released this year.
It just bothers me when logical inconsistencies happen in a film, in my mind it happened here with that scene and it took me out of it.
To me everything in a film should be towards one thing. Telling the story. If the visuals overtake the story then the story will suffer and I think that's what happened here.
Peace!
Edit:
Here's how he finds deckard. The heat signature picks him up and not the bees.
Bees were also signficant in the bug/insect element of the movie. In the original we had birds having significance. Tyrell's owl. The dove that Roy Batty held and released.
In this one we see grub and bees have significance.
The birds & the bees....aka how children are made. The creation of children being the central hook of this film.
In this one we see grub and bees have significance.
The birds & the bees....aka how children are made. The creation of children being the central hook of this film.
You just overanalyzed this one man. No need to leave
And no, the heat signatures that were picked up belonged to the swarm of bees. This was K's first clue to investigate that spot
"The tortoise lays on it's back, it's belly baking in the hot sun, beating it's legs trying to turn it'self over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?" - Bautista trying to get up
"You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl/guy." - The Joi hologram billboard
I do think these are a stretch but I hadn't considered them before and to my surprise they kinda sorta fit.
"You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl/guy." - The Joi hologram billboard
I do think these are a stretch but I hadn't considered them before and to my surprise they kinda sorta fit.
Heckler456
Banned
To me, it seems like you're actively wanting to make this out to be an issue. You're doing yourself a huge disservice by nitpicking over something so insignificant, especially when there are plenty of plausible solutions to what purpose they serve, both in-universe as well as as a choice made by the writer/director.
Except he didn't see Deckards heat signature. Deckard's clearly wasn't visible. The huge amount of bees is what he found. Not to mention bees represent a signficant visual imagery central to the theme of the movie. Of life. Of hope.
What a small minded way to view film. Many great films, classic films, aren't narrative driven. I feel bad for you, honestly.
radios shipping overview
Member
The fresh flower early on, left at Rachel's gravesite, and the bees later on that tie into this (no flowers without bees, no bees without flowers), represent some of very few glimmers of hope that the movie shows for Earth or humanity. They show that Deckard and/or the resistance are working toward a better future. and that Earth is not totally fucked, despite all appearances otherwise. And they show that life can find a way(tm) even in a place assumed to be condemned by radiation like LV.
ReplacementPelican
Member
Right, so there's a couple of things here and don't worry, I don't think the veracity is an issue. Its important to discuss films if you like discussing films so its all good from my perspective.
I don't think it was a dream. I don't accept that this is a plausible answer. Both my answers to you were more about the aspects of the movie than a specific scene. The movie, at times, seek to confuse you with some aspects because the nature of both Blade Runner films isn't about answering question. It keeps its POV stringent when it feels like it needs to, we see the wonder in K's reactions but not why, how or if Deckard has them for a reason.
Thematically, there's a couple of things.
Firstly, one of the questions on the test was about a wasp. Deckard asks Rachel what she would do if one landed on her arm, to which she replies that she would kill it. Rachel was an old model, an unreliable model and one who didn't know she was a Replicant so we can take her reaction to be a wholly human one. K just leaves the bee alive and, instead, wonders. Its maybe the difference between someone who is content in a lie and someone who is seeking the truth. Maybe. Its rather open ended.
Villeneuve has also, I believe, suggested that its a metaphor for hope in the fact of climate change.
I think that bees are also quite important in Dick's other works so it may well be a simple homage.
I'm sorry if you don't find these answers sufficient.
On the note of an unreliable narrator, its to be expected from someone whose mind, thoughts and feelings have been manipulated by fake memories.
CambriaRising
Member
Anyone get Big O vibes from this? The event that wiped out all the records, certain beats about the way that K searches for the truth about his identity...I expected Gosling to reach for a tomato at some point.
I was trying to pin down that vibe I was getting and you're right, it's Big O.
I should rewatch that.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I was thinking you could have just had the heat signature be deckard isntead. He's the only thing out there if you get rid of the bees. K could have still found him the exact same way, if the scene was gone.
The only reason I've been talking about the scene is because people picked that out of my opinion of the entire movie I posted a few pages back. There are plenty of plausible solutions to this problem if you ignore what we are told. Deckard is a character who gave up his own daughter and the last 20 years of his life, to make sure she wasn't found. He's done a really good job so far. Why keep bees? They would make it obvious to anyone looking that someone was out there. Anyone out there is probably out there looking for him so signaling the whole world he's there. It doesn't make sense with his character as presented by the film. Because of that logical inconsistency I can't help but think the scene flaws the movie. The film has plenty of flaws, but this whole scene becomes a flaw.
If it were acknowledge in anyway... As I said earlier a really easy way to fix this is to just have Deckard be a little suicidal. He wants to get caught so be can die. That fixes the bee scene, but without the scene doesn't make sense. We don't need to know a character likes hot dogs like in the Happening, we don't need to know he makes honey. But if you are going to include hives in the film, you should explain it in someway. It doesn't have to be spoken, it can be completely visual, but as it stands it would make much more sense for the scene not to be there in the first place.
That's what I think they were going for. Maybe I am nit picking, but for the reasons I outlined above, the logic is just off for me. I'm fine with having to read into things and we all have our own interpretations, but this doesn't make sense with the character Deckard.
That explanation does make the scene more interesting and we do get to hear the question asked earlier in the film. This actually fixes the scene for me. It's not clear at all, but yeah, that makes sense, fixes the theme and aligns it with the rest of the film.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of it like that.
tonysidaway
Member
It would have been a quite different story if they had. The point of the critique isn't to tell the filmmakers and writers not to make films, but to see what that says about our own society.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
We can get gosling, wood Harris, brolin, & Tommy Lee Jones to form a union of k.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll